Mining and petroleum bill to hit snags

Overwhelmingly evident is the cloud hanging over the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill (MPRDA), linked inextricably to a troubled Mining Charter, some movement on the MPRDA being necessary to restore stability to the mining industry in the form of legislative clarity.

Legislative clarity will also allow the petroleum and gas industry to hopefully go into a development phase. Here the players need an equal playing field, the State in this case getting a free stake possibly at 20% but paying no development costs since the State now has ownership of the resources.

Free lunches

There is one further possible hurdle on the horizon. Aside from issues surrounding the Charter, which is technically a non-parliamentary issue, the application of Parliamentary Rules regarding the great number of changes that are being made to the Bill raise procedural issues.

It is indeed a very different Bill to that which was voted through Parliament earlier and passed by the National Assembly.

For the moment, now that provincial opinion on the more recent changes to the MPRDA have been returned, the provinces each having voted and recorded their nine mandates on the subject, the idea is that the Bill can then finally be returned to the Presidency, possibly via the NA Committee to lodge the changes.

First things first

There is a sense emerging that the offshore gas industry is a little happier with the free carry proposals but on the other side of negotiations it appears, from the media, that the Chamber of Mines is struggling to find common ground with Minister Zwane on the Mining Charter, referred to in the MPRDA but not legislatively part of it.

It is difficult to imagine any Mining and Petroleum Resources Development Act, as amended, being in force without an agreed and new Mining Charter in place. However, developments in this area will have to be watched.

Last in queue

In the list of Bills before Parliament the MPRDA has been listed last (and therefore the longest under debate) for nearly three years, except for a short period when it went to the President. This reflects the long tussle involved.

The four major hindrances were the extended negotiations with the offshore petroleum industry on the free carry issue; the fact that President Zuma returned the Bill approved unsigned insisting that it be considered by all nine provinces; issues surrounding what the Minister has defined as “strategic minerals”; the thorny question of mineral beneficiation and the completion of the mining charter, to which the MPRDA refers but remains not incorporated.

Next process

Many more issues have still to be debated, whilst the basic parameters will have to come to a head on the parliamentary “rules of the game” regarding the passage of the legislation itself. Meanwhile, NCOP hearings on the Bill have been scheduled for the last two weeks of June 2017.

Throughout, the “elephant in the room” for the mining industry has remained the Charter itself which Minister Zwane has stated will be “the most revolutionary Charter ever produced.”

Possible slow down

Meanwhile on the MPRDA, Opposition members will no doubt study closely the Rules of Parliament which state, as was the case with the FICA Bill, that if a Bill is returned unsigned then only the issues for which the Bill was returned may be altered and then only once.

However, unlike the FICA Bill which was returned on the basis of one issue, that of unwarranted searches the MPRDA Bill was returned on the basis of lack of consultation with the provinces.

To amplify, if the President only returned the Bill on the basis that the NCOP and National House of Traditional Leaders had not been consulted, it may be a contested issue as to whether the Bill will be challenged under these Rules. This is a legal issue.

The Legal Resources Centre is quoted as being interested in such a challenge.

Looking ahead

For years, it has been the view of many that both industries that each should have its own “MPRDA”, especially in the light of the fact that both have their own specific and very different Charters.

Whilst crude oil, subsequently refined to petroleum and gas, are certainly natural resources now owned by the State, theoretically the only resources that are ‘mineral’ are those which have a crystalline molecular structure and are “mined”. This would naturally exclude extracted crude oil and gas.

Two is not one

Consequently, both industries, which fall under two government departments and which are distinctively different from one another, have historically been under one piece of legislation governing all geological resources.

This difference between the two industries is expressed in many ways. The petroleum industry is centred around its refineries, very much technical industries with ‘upstream’ components in importation and exploration and ‘downstream’ interests involving distribution, retailing and property interests. Their product is very directly linked to the cost of doing business and the cost of living.

Meanwhile, the mining industry is essentially involved in extraction with massive labour factors, high capital costs, sophisticated export involvements and beneficiation. Its product is closely linked to the survival of industry in general and is directly linked to GDP.

Legislatively, therefore, one garment certainly does not fit all – despite each industry having its own charter. Inevitably separate legislation will have to be developed but such changes are seen as being down down the road for the moment.

Damaging delays

Whatever route the Bill now takes in Parliament, any challenge to its progress will be particularly frustrating for investors if there are more delays. Those issues mainly arise in the mining sector where far more is at stake and consequently rating agencies are flagging Minister Zwane’s actions. The gas exploration industry is clearly tired of waiting.

The results of three days of parliamentary hearings on the Bill, which have included some side issues such as Shell SA on the future of shale gas and any demands from the House of Traditional Leaders, should prove interesting.

The major issue remains as to what is government policy is on the whole particularly regarding labour as distinct from just Cabinet ambitions for BEE participation percentages.

Next stages

Most attention will now fall upon the complementary non-legislative document, the Mining Charter, despite the unclear parliamentary situation. Following the public hearings, the NCOP Select Committee will summate these meetings and the relevant departments will respond over the following days.

Possibly, at some stage, Minister Zwane will address Parliament on the issue to clarify the situation of government’s view and relevant comment on the Bill will also no doubt arise from media briefings by the Ministry on both subjects. For the moment, much of the issue will be dictated by events outside of Parliament.

Debt relief and credit under microscope

… sent to clients 22 Dec 2016…. Further powers for the National Credit Regulator to regulate against reckless lending have been reaffirmed as necessary and the subject of debt relief for needy persons considered.

This conclusion was the result of a series of hearings conducted by Parliament and criteria are to be developed for the application of debt relief measures and how this could be achieved are now being studied.

Such criteria could include target groups of debtors who would be eligible for the relief; the period in which the measure would apply; the type of debt that would be covered and how the measure could be implemented.

An earlier study, commissioned by the National Credit Regulator (NCR) some months ago, concluded that there was a need for the National Credit Act to make provision for the introduction of some form of national debt relief but the NCR decided to consult Parliament and to involve public input.

Growing debt bubble

Whilst reckless lending and irresponsible borrowing which led to the disastrous housing bubble in the US, Joanna Fubbs, as chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, acknowledged that the situation regarding any retail debt bubble is not as bad in SA. Nevertheless, she said that for some time she has been concerned that the National Credit Amendment Act is not working in the best interests of vulnerable groups.

On the issue of debt relief, whether from reckless lending or not, it was agreed some time ago by the Committee that it was important for stakeholders to be consulted to establish a better picture. A parliamentary select committee, chaired by MP Eddie Makue of the same Committee, was formed to investigate whether debt relief would be an acceptable policy for SA and to organise parliamentary hearings focusing on banking input and debt control aspects.

The brief

The Portfolio Committee also recommended to this subcommittee that there needed to be a better understanding between the excesses of lending, the plight of borrowers and a view established on regulations which should refrain from fostering any culture of not paying debt in the hope that it might be written off.

Meanwhile, it has been proposed by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to extend the powers of the National Credit Regulator to conduct proactive investigations into reckless lending . They would also be asked to impose administrative fines and to empower the Minister to provide debt relief mechanisms through further regulations, yet to be drafted.

Also, NCR submitted that it had already laid out its own proposals to tighten up existing regulations and penalties for perpetrators of reckless lending which the Regulator was currently entitled to enforce under the Act but the views of the Regulator were to be sought on debt relief by Makue’s Committee.

DTI view

DTI has since confirmed to this Select Committee that it was their view was that the Minister of Trade and Industry, Rob Davies, should be given the power to prescribe debt relief measures, the nature of which must be carefully thought through . At the time, DTI acknowledged that banks and credit providers had to make their views known preferably in a series of hearings now conducted.

NCR view

National Credit Regulator, Nomsa Motshegare, has confirmed to the Select Committee that in their view some form of debt relief is necessary given the reasons of the country’s slow economic growth; retrenchments that were taking place; and rising unemployment figures.

In general, she said, these factors had already diminished household income and led to difficulty for consumers to repay loans. The NCR had found, they said, that there was a willingness in general amongst banks to find ways to relieve the financial burden of indebted clients, many of them stating that they did this already, but there was considerable doubt on whether this should or could be backed up by any enforcement measures and regulations.

The banks

In this regard, during further public hearings, Cas Coovadia of the Banking Association of SA (BASA) emphasised that legislated debt relief for all would have negative consequences since this was far too prescriptive. He called for “a customised debt relief approach that would suite various portfolios” as a better principle to follow.

At the outset of the discussions, Coovadia stated that BASA did not support the principle of debt forgiveness as an objective. One of the banking system’s foundation principles, he said, was the need to efficiently and legally lend money to borrowers and to collect repayments from borrowers to settle the loans.

He told parliamentarians. “A confluence of pricing, regardless of individual consumer risk, will arise at a portfolio level to offset the inability to price for the risk. This will mean that consumers who have a good repayment history will no longer be rewarded for such behaviour when they apply for further credit.”

He warned that blanket debt forgiveness would accelerate irresponsible borrowing and said all banks offered means to repay and gauged the circumstances when lending. Any failure to perform on this principle would have severe consequences for the industry and economy; would increase risk to depositors/savers; would impose a cost on society; and would limit credit providers’ ability to extend credit, he said.

Making a plan

Nedbank said that the option of rehabilitation was always a preferred course rather than hard legal collections and the bank had recently adopted a philosophy in general banking terms that to become proactive in terms of debt relief solutions was the far better solution for those who had over-extended themselves.

They said the situation between credit provider and consumers should remain “mutually beneficial”, which principle bore in mind that the economy of the country was less affected. Nedbank confirmed that a satisfactory low, in their view, of 4.6% of their clients could be classified as technically in total default without the any possibility of rescue, as at the end of 2015.

Too prescriptive

Individual banks, such as Standard Bank, Absa, First Rand, Capitec and African Bank generally supported BASA’s view that prescriptive laws or regulations regarding lending, collection and debt relief would remove the principle of case by case treatment which in turn, they said, would probably inhibit loans being granted or drive up their cost

Debt and labour

Chamber of Mines was blunter and took the view that employee over-indebtedness was a major problem in labour relations and “fed into unrealistic wage demand” scenarios. Indebtedness, they said, was one of the major catalysts in recent mining unrest.

They were clear that education on family accounts and the implications of over borrowing had to be stepped up, rather than complicated prescriptive measures on relief that would favour one and not the other. More important they said was that loan sharks should brought under control and whose malpractices were rife amongst the mine working community.

Ms Sue Fritz, speaking for the Chamber, said that any form of debt relief provisions must consider the danger of undermining the basic principle that with the ability to borrow came the understanding such debt had to be repaid or quality lending would cease and debt might increase.

Cosatu view

Cosatu’s Matthew Parks urged that some form of debt relief be provided to a defined base of categories, such as retrenched workers; those only on social grants; the poor; working-class and middle-class students with student loans and borrowers who had paid off a large part of a loan but fallen on hard times. He also appealed to parliamentarians that there was a need to crack down on loan sharks, formal and informal.

Paul Slot, speaking as president of the Debt Counsellors Association, said some form of debt relief was necessary to counter the current high level of household debt, noting that according to the association, 54% of those in financial trouble simply applied for more debt to extricate themselves.

Conclusions in process

The Select Committee has now made a call upon on the National Credit Regulator to tighten regulations further on loan sharks and the registration process. Chairperson Eddie Makue has now reported back on the hearings to the Portfolio Committee but has noted in Parliament that he was deeply concerned that a large amount of vulnerable people remain exposed to unregulated credit and can become victims purely because of greed alone on the part of the lender.

On reckless lending, it was noted that often ridiculously high repayments from the poor were a weapon used to gain control of assets. Makue said, “The NCR has to protect poor South Africans against such lending by unregistered and immoral micro-lenders. In most rural and semi-urban areas people maintain their existence through borrowing and the interest they sometimes get charged is shocking, and interest rates should be capped by law”, Makue said.

State debt relief and debt relief regulations

The “jury is still out” therefore for 2016 on the issue of DTI tabling a Bill and the subject of debt relief generally.

Parliament closed 7 December and will resume this debate early in 2017

Some sort of movement on MPRDA at last……..

sent to clients 18 March…..In a parliamentary document recently published it is shown that the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment (MPRDA) Bill has been sent on a token trip through the National House of Traditional Leaders for comment in thirty days and then to be returned to the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources.

This is probably for some temporary major changes to be made to the Bill after debate until such time as two new Bills, one for the mining industry and one for the oil and gas industry, are drafted in time to come. No doubt this movement was initiated as the result of the recent meeting between President Zuma and business leaders.

The extraordinary affair of the MPRDA has been going on since the first draft of the Bill was published for comment in December 2012 regulating extensively the exploitation of minerals and resources and the legal movement and transfer of resource rights. Both industries have their own and very different BEE charters and the single Bill deals with both and many empowerment factors.

Core issues

Two issues of note were that in the new Bill as originally proposed the Minister was to form a new “entity” which will “promote onshore and offshore exploration for and production of petroleum” and which will also “receive, store, maintain, interpret, add value to, evaluate, disseminate or deal in all geological or geophysical information” relating to petroleum and gas exploration matters.

Secondly, sections 80 and 84 of the anchor Act were to be amended to provide for State participation in any successful minerals and gas/oil development exercises carried out by the private sector, the Bill providing for a State right to free carried interest in all such exploration and production rights.
Specific details regarding the extent of the “free carry” were to be published in a government gazette, a figure of 20% being bandied about at the time. “We are on the path of changing the mining and petroleum industry in South Africa, whether you like it or not,” said Mineral Resources Minister Susan Shabangu earlier in 2014.

Strong views

Accompanied by a public outcry and strongly worded objections from private industry, foreign companies and other institutions, the Bill reached Parliament virtually unchanged. Again, brought up before the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources in public hearings, were strong objections from Opposition MPs and institutionalised industry, neither of whom minced their words, describing the Bill, in one case, as a “self-destruction tool of South Africa’s investment climate.”

Nevertheless, the ANC Alliance continued on their course and the Bill was hammered through in a rush at the end of the parliamentary term, the ANC summonsing through its whip sufficient numbers.

In the background, as the Bill went through Parliament, was the fact that the Department of Mineral Resources and the Department of Energy were only just completing their split apart. Crossed wires were the order of the day.

Nothing happened

Since that date the Bill has sat in limbo; a new Mineral Resources Minister Ngoako Ramatlhodi agreeing shortly after with the with mining companies and the Chamber of Mines that the best and fastest way forward to bring certainty to the mining and oil drilling industry would be to pass the Bill subject to amendments based on a new approach to the mining beneficiation issue.

Secondly, the matter of state “free carry” could be dropped.

At the time it was guessed that at least a year and a half would be the delay if two replacement Bills were to be drafted, separating mineral resources from oil and gas in the light of the fact that both have separate and very different BEE charters. The quicker alternative to bring some certainty was that temporary amendments to the existing Bill should be made.

Despite this, the Bill has just stuck right there, in the President’s office, until recently, now moving back to Parliament because, as is suspected, business leaders in their recent discussions with President Zuma must have drawn his attention to the continuing lack of lack of certainty in both industries because of unknown legislative changes about to occur and an apparent inability by Cabinet to give clear policy leads.

So where are we?

So as far as the MPRDA Bill is concerned, there is movement in the goods sidings but whether any train is about to start on a journey can only be known when a meeting is scheduled by the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources. Yet another minister is the train driver.

Labour committee to get consolidated report…..

In the light of the fact that any legislation to be considered on the subject of a national minimum wage would involve all undertakings on a national basis and a major cross section of its citizenry, Lumka Yengeni, chairperson of the parliamentary portfolio committee on labour, finalised the provincial stage of her hearings. Localised hearings were held in the Northern provinces last year and now in the balance of provinces after Parliament re-assembled.

The reason for this laborious process is that any such labour legislation would come under section 76 of the Constitution, which demands that debate and approval is not only at national level within the National Assembly (NA) but also with the concurrence of the relevant select committee of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP).

Hearing the people……

Such legislation has to have the approval of each of the nine provincial legislatures and such mandates are passed back to the NCOP and have to be found in tandem with any NA approval. Yengeni is therefore sounding out the market place, as it were, for the idea of a national minimum wage

Whether it would require a separate Bill or an amendment to the LRA is a premature thought at this stage, probably the former in the light that it would need another commission, another departmental structure, probably a tribunal, enforceable laws with penalties and very specific regulations.

ANC seems set on changes

BUSA, Chamber of Mines, labour brokers, Agri-SA and others have already made submissions on a national basis before Parliament closed and the extraordinary thing was that a parliamentary committee should have taken upon itself to debate the whole issue just before meetings on the same subject scheduled by Deputy President, Cyril Ramaphosa.

Nevertheless, Agri-SA, in responding from one of the most problematic perspectives, told parliamentarians that a minimum wage set at a higher level than at present as part of a national application would result in a “considerable number of structural changes within the farming industry to accommodate what would undoubtedly be a call for higher wages in many spheres at many different levels of training and expertise.”

They warned that “to adjust and maintain their competitiveness and profitability” such a policy would be characterised by the shedding of jobs, increased mechanisation and the consolidation of farming units” – as had happened in the past they said.

FAWU zeroes in on agric

Food and Allied Workers Union said that any comparison to the minimum wage in nearby countries “was an insult” and said that that South African farmers on the whole were paying “poverty wages”. The cost of food to poorer families became a major debating area during the hearings, although there seemed to be tacit acceptance that the issue was to become an accepted fact on the labour horizon.

During the hearings recently in Gauteng, COSATU now seems to be suggesting remuneration somewhere in the area of R7,000 per month, submissions also coming from major industrial players in South Africa’s heavy industry sector. COSATU comments after the hearings where finally completed and in interview seemed to come “poker style” to an admittance that a minimum to them was seen at about R4,500.

Sector views on national minimum wage ….

editorial … Feisty or not, Lumka Yengeni of the parliamentary portfolio committee on labour certainly knows how to advance her career. Whether all her recent parliamentary activity is in line with what Lithuli House wants one never knows but whatever she does seems to attract attention.

The recent hearings on the possibility of a national minimum wage (NMW), which the ANC has stated as a policy imperative, caught most by surprise by the wide ranging topics brought up in debate. Lumka Yengeni seems to have latched on to ANC policy and summonsed many parties to Parliament to give their views on the subject, including BUSA, the Chamber of Mines and Agri-SA. Invited to the debates in many cases were also the appropriate union affiliates to that particular sector

Reports on the consequent debates are with clients and will be posted on our website in a fortnight’s time, since immediacy is the purpose of our reports to them.

Maximum pressure for NMW

The unusual thing about these meetings, as South Africa pivots on the edge of economic direction, is that Parliament should take it upon itself to debate the whole issue of the national minimum wage when the subject also has been scheduled by Deputy President, Cyril Ramaphosa for a national gathering.

Whether this is naiveté on the part of Lumka Yengeni or plain political upstaging only those close to her will know but the experience of the apple farmers in Elgin over labour broking will testify to the fact that she knows the art of political theatre.

Air quality worries add to cost….

Whilst confirming that it supported full compliance with Section 21 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act listed activities insofar as emissions were concerned, Eskom told the portfolio committee on water and environmental affairs that compliance with the amended Act was also going to mean additional capital costs to Eskom of between R25m to R28m on each of its power plants.

Certain stakeholders in the energy industry were given the opportunity over two days to make submissions on listed activities which result in atmospheric emissions, the development of a such a list having been ongoing since 2010. Present at the hearings insofar as industry was concerned were the South African Petroleum Industry Association (SAPIA), Eskom and Chamber of Mines and others. Notable in its absence was Sasol.

A lot more than just smoke

Eskom in their presentation, also went on to say that additional water requirements needed to reduce nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides at all its plants in terms of the proposed Section 21 list would require between 3-6 million m3 of water per annum, with 400,000 tons of sorbent required. Only a certain portion of these costs had been taken into account when submitting to NERSA on the multi-year price determination for new electricity tariffs for the next five years, they said.

Eskom spokesperson, Dr Kristy Langerman, said that they would like to see the list of emissions amended and drew attention to the fact that Eskom did not emit ash or nitrogen oxide emissions and that there was only one area that was non-compliant as far as sulphur dioxides were concerned and that was Kriel town in Mpumalanga.

Eskom provided the committee with an emissions road map relative to all its plant for the period 1982 to 2020. They pointed out that as at 2013, where Medupi appeared on the plant schedule, funding constraints were now applicable. They called for the ability to offset projects and for a 48-hour start-up period in the minimum emissions standards for a cold start after long outages.

In calling for amended timeframes for implementation of capital projects to meet the new requirements, Adv.de Lange, chairperson, told Eskom’s Tony Stott that for this they would need to have a plan with DEA “in a matter of days”; this debated and agreed. He said the country had made commitments on the international climate response stage and, whether the committee or Eskom agreed or not with such agreements, all parties had to participate in SA reaching the targets. Heavy fines for those not doing so would be the order of the day, he said.

Not happy with point source

Anton Moldam, for SAPIA called for a more holistic approach to emissions control that was being proposed. Having been deeply involved since 2007 with government in the development of emissions control, their concern was the “disconnect” between general ambient and “point source” standards, by which whole communities were intended to be protected rather than what came out of stacks and only affected immediate areas, if at all.

It was not good making enormous investments in capital equipment if they do not improve general air quality in public “airsheds”, SAPIA said, and they called for specific site parameters to be drawn up, as is done in other countries.

“New refineries can be designed to meet new specifications”, Moldam said but SAPIA could not support the expectation that existing plant everywhere can be somehow retrofitted to meet new refinery standards. “This is not technically feasible in many cases”, he said. “The expectation that ageing plants should be upgraded to meet standards of new plant has to be dropped”.

“Bubble” the best

He said that the petroleum industry had for years worked on the “bubble approach” for emission standards where emissions from plant in general was calculated. However, the new regulatory process of emission controls per individual plant stack was impractical for a refinery to consider, since what went through that stack came from dozens of sources.

The decision of the department of DEA to drop the “bubble” approach did not reflect the fact that refineries were highly integrated processes and this was not a manageable process without enormous cost.

SAPIA called for a complete re-think on the DEA proposals on emissions as listed and called, like Eskom, for a “grandfathering” clause whereby DEA allow for the age of the plant and its eventual shutdown be taken into account when regulating that re-capitalisation takes place to meet new standards.

Dr Thuli Mduli, national air quality officer and a chief director of DEA, in introducing the proposed listed emissions in terms of the section 21 list, said that it was a DEA viewpoint that grandfathering was not supported and a consistent approach was needed across the entire spectrum of industries, which was why the “bubble” system of monitoring had been discontinued and a “source specific” approach applied.

Compliance timeframes, she said, for new plants would be corrected back to the original section 21 provisions but in the light of business proposals that it was unreasonable for new plant standards to be defined by such moves, this might be reconsidered. She noted, however, that civil organisations had already condemned DEA for its apparent relaxation but she also noted the committee’s call that further discussion should take place with stakeholders, despite limited time to do this.

When push becomes shove

Lloyd Nelson for Chamber of Mines said that a number of unintended consequences had arisen in terms of existing legislation and they were uncomfortable with “technology forcing” in what was already a difficult financial environment for the mining sector, particularly the platinum sector which was most affected by the proposed lists of controlled emissions. They appealed for “re-categorisation” of certain metallurgical operations.

Nelson said whilst the mining industry very much supported the principles of the proposals, they regretted the constant “moving of the goal posts”, since the original 2010 proposals, which their members had adhered to, had been changed and many mines were angry with the present uncertain investment climate with constant changes and flux.

In making various recommendations, including that the compliance timeframes be relaxed, Chamber of Mines appeared surprised that the petroleum industry had separately negotiated a specific period of three years beyond that applied to industry generally on compliance.

Also not happy with fixed point source

They also pointed to the fact that international regulations permits relaxation of “point source” emissions, providing ambient air conditions continued to meet requirements, and said that attainment of some the limits either by 2020 or before, was not possible or, in some cases, because of purely unrealistic or unsustainable cost.

Also voicing opinion was the cement industry who expressed concern on the cost of monitoring and the chemical industry who complained, as did Eskom and others, that basic errors in the wording of the 2010 Section 21 notice had prevented upgrades and had therefore already caused delays prejudicing planning, thus meaning the extent of re-engineering was now not possible in the timeframes allowed.

Groundwork Africa drew a picture of failing governance of air quality control in South Africa, stating that in Secunda, 90% of data showed that that air quality in the area was well in excess of that allowed by international standards. Dr. Eugene Cairncross of the Coalition for Environmental Justice said it had been an error of DEA to allow exclusion of petroleum industry flare emissions since flares were known to give off heavy pollution for at least fifteen minutes on start up and sometimes for a whole day.

In conclusion, chair Adv. de Lange, said once again as he had continued to say throughout the meetings, that he would resist any attempts by applications to allow DEA to extend timeframes “because industry is known for putting such issues off time and time again and that he was not going to allow South Africa to be polluted by old factories and plant”.

However, he finally admitted that DEA should consider that where it was known that a plant was to be “mothballed”, account of this should be taken into consideration, particularly when an industry member showed that it was patently obvious that to retrofit plant eventually due for closure was both wasteful and uneconomical.

“Industry had better get these requests in fast and make a plan, he said, because the fines are going to be heavy, heavy enough to make everybody think twice”.

The following articles are archived on this subject:http://parlyreportsa.co.za//health/air-quality-management-framework-bill-to-be-tabled-2/ http://parlyreportsa.co.za//health/air-quality-act-calls-for-air-dispersion-modelling/

SARS role at border posts being clarified …. In adopting the Border Management Authority (BMA) Bill, Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs agreed with a wording that at all future one-stop border […]